1983 I might give to Wilander. He did have a 3-0 record against McEnroe that year, more tournament wins, fewer losses, performed better at 3 of the 4 major touraments, a better Davis Cup record. Are you including the Masters played in January 84 as part of your argument? I tend to include it in 1984 since that's when it's played even though the Masters is supposed to be the season ending event.

Also I would discount Connors from the 1977 argument. However, I agree with you splitting Connors/Borg in 1978. Most people just tend to see Borg 2 majors to Connors 1 but I would say they performed pretty evenly throughout the year.

In 1964 it has them as co-number 1's. I'd like to see a list of both of their tournament wins so I could make up my mind. On the face of it though Laver seems to nod. (Dominant head to head plus 2 out of 3 of the majors). I wonder why the ranking voters at the time had Rosewall out on front or at least equal to Laver?

In 1964, the pros had an internal point system on a 18 or 20 tournament basis, with no difference between the status of the events. Many matches and some tournaments, especially on the South African tour late in the year, were not counted. Rosewall, who led the US tour until July 1964, finished on top in a close race under this system. But Laver had a 15-4 head to head, won US pro and Wembley, the two pro biggies, and won 11 events to Rosewalls 10, and if one looks closely, it seems, that Laver surpassed Rosewall with his Wembley win in September and closed out the year with his domination of the South African tour.
Overall a good list, Hoodjem, closely following the Wikipedia list, made by Carlo and others. Some years are always debatable: For instance, i would give Connors 1976 and Borg alone 1978, Newcombe 1971 or Smith alone 1972.

In 1964, the pros had an internal point system on a 18 or 20 tournament basis, with no difference between the status of the events. Many matches and some tournaments, especially on the South African tour late in the year, were not counted. Rosewall, who led the US tour until July 1964, finished on top in a close race under this system. But Laver had a 15-4 head to head, won US pro and Wembley, the two pro biggies, and won 11 events to Rosewalls 10, and if one looks closely, it seems, that Laver surpassed Rosewall with his Wembley win in September and closed out the year with his domination of the South African tour.
Overall a good list, Hoodjem, closely following the Wikipedia list, made by Carlo and others. Some years are always debatable: For instance, i would give Connors 1976 and Borg alone 1978, Newcombe 1971 or Smith alone 1972.

I like the list. The thing I find very interesting is that Kovacs, who has been known mainly as a clown is on the list three times. He fascinates me to a certain degree because it's almost universally accepted by those who see him how gifted he was. Bobby Riggs has hinted that when Kovacs was on his game that he was perhaps the greatest. Kramer mentioned in his book how he was in awe of Kovacs and how Kovacs was one of the few who returned so well that he couldn't serve and volley against him. I know some have argue for Kovacs to be in the Hall of Fame.

On the year 1964, while I do think Laver was number one for the year based on record, Rosewall was considered (perhaps incorrectly) number one. However since "officially" Rosewall was number one I do think it is reasonable for Muscles to be considered co-number one for that year. The records, despite Laver's great head to head advantage were very comparable which means that Rosewall must have done much better than Laver against the other players.

And yes I think Borg was clearly the best in 1978. In fact it's quite possible 1978 was Borg's best year.

mostly agreed, except
- Rosewall in 1960 (Gonzales didn't play enough)
- Rosewall in 1964, or at least a tie
- imo, Ashe a clear best in 1975
- Borg a clear #1 in 1978
- Agassi a tie with Sampras in 1995
- Sampras equal or greater than Agassi in 1999

mostly agreed, except
- Rosewall in 1960 (Gonzales didn't play enough)
- Rosewall in 1964, or at least a tie
- imo, Ashe a clear best in 1975
- Borg a clear #1 in 1978
- Agassi a tie with Sampras in 1995
- Sampras equal or greater than Agassi in 1999

Borg in 1978 won the Italian, the French and Wimbledon plus he was in the final of the US Open against Connors and lost badly due to an injury. He had the highest Games Won Percentage of the Open Era with an incredible number over 66%!

1977 is a very tough year to call, one of the toughest. Lots of debate on here about it. I originally had Vilas as no. 1, but have been persuaded that Borg deserves also an equal rating (Borg 3-0 against Vilas that year). Connors did win the WCT Finals and the Masters, but why the heck did the ATP computer rank Connors as no. 1?

Question: in what part of the year did Gonzales retire in 1960?

I remain convinced that in 1964 Laver was marginally better than Kenny: all the stats point in this direction. The case for Ashe higher than Connors in 1975 does seem strong. I bow to consensus. Edit made on 1978: Borg alone.

Agassi looks like a very close no. 2 in 1995, but not quite. In 1999 Sampras looks like a very close no. 2, but not quite.

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.

i think the list is solid, but on some of the shared years i think there are definite winners.

In 1952 I would eliminate segura because gonzales won wembley and had 5-2 edge on segura leaving a shared ranking for sedgman and gonzales

in 1958 i would choose sedgman because of 2 major wins wembley (the most important0 and aussie pro to gonzales one win at forest hills, and 4-2 head to head advntage for sedgman including both 5 set matches they played.

in 1959 i would choose be cause his overall win-loss percentage is better than hoad who had lot poor results in europe. gonzales won the us tour over haod. both players are otherwise egual with 5 event wins and one major each.

in 1972 i domn't see newcombe as a contender , the race is between nastase (winner of 12 events from over 30 starts and the biggest event forest hills) against smith (9 wins from 21 starts, wimbledon and the davis cup) with vote going smith because of his 4-1 edge over nastase.

in 1975 everybody but the atp choose ashe. ashe won 9 events including wimbledon and wct finals and won his only match against connors, who was ru at wimbledon and forset hills and won 9 minor events.

in 1976 connors deserves because he won 12 events to borg's 6 and had a 3-0 head to head over borg.

in 1977 i agree its betwee borg and vilas. I would choose vilas because he won 2majors and was runner up in the aussie to borg's one major. outside the majors vilas won 16 events to borg's 10. borg's 3-0 head to head is his only claim and is not sufficient on its own.

in 1978 i would choose borg with 2 majors to connor's 1 and 3-2 head to head advantage.

in 1989 i would choose becker with 2 majors to one for lendl, and becker's big davis cup win and his 2-0 head to head edge on lendl. lendl 's only claim are 10 event wins to becker's 6

1977 is a very tough year to call, one of the toughest. Lots of debate on here about it. I orginally had Vilas as no. 1, but have been persuaded that Borg deserves also an equal rating (Borg 3-0 against Vilas that year). Connors did win the WCT Finals and the Masters, but why the heck did the ATP computer rank Connors as no. 1?

Question: in what part of the year did Gonzales retire in 1960?

I remain convinced that in 1964 Laver was marginally better than Kenny: all the stats point in this direction. The case for Ashe higher than Connors in 1975 does seem strong. I bow to consensus. Edit made on 1978: Borg alone.

Agassi looks like a very close no. 2 in 1995, but not quite. In 1999 Sampras looks like a very close no. 2, but not quite.

Yes, Borg 3-0 agains Vilas, but Vilas's results are very very very better than Borg's, so Vilas is the n°1 (Federer has been a long time n°1 even if he lost against Nadal, because his results were better). With the ATP computer of today, Vilas would be n°1 during several monthes. It's absurd that Connors was n°1 ATP this year.

i think the list is solid, but on some of the shared years i think there are definite winners.

In 1952 I would eliminate segura because gonzales won wembley and had 5-2 edge on segura leaving a shared ranking for sedgman and gonzales

in 1958 i would choose sedgman because of 2 major wins wembley (the most important0 and aussie pro to gonzales one win at forest hills, and 4-2 head to head advntage for sedgman including both 5 set matches they played.

in 1959 i would choose be cause his overall win-loss percentage is better than hoad who had lot poor results in europe. gonzales won the us tour over haod. both players are otherwise egual with 5 event wins and one major each.

in 1972 i domn't see newcombe as a contender , the race is between nastase (winner of 12 events from over 30 starts and the biggest event forest hills) against smith (9 wins from 21 starts, wimbledon and the davis cup) with vote going smith because of his 4-1 edge over nastase.

in 1975 everybody but the atp choose ashe. ashe won 9 events including wimbledon and wct finals and won his only match against connors, who was ru at wimbledon and forset hills and won 9 minor events.

in 1976 connors deserves because he won 12 events to borg's 6 and had a 3-0 head to head over borg.

in 1977 i agree its betwee borg and vilas. I would choose vilas because he won 2majors and was runner up in the aussie to borg's one major. outside the majors vilas won 16 events to borg's 10. borg's 3-0 head to head is his only claim and is not sufficient on its own.

in 1978 i would choose borg with 2 majors to connor's 1 and 3-2 head to head advantage.

in 1989 i would choose becker with 2 majors to one for lendl, and becker's big davis cup win and his 2-0 head to head edge on lendl. lendl 's only claim are 10 event wins to becker's 6
jeffrey

All good points. I'll start sifting and weighing.

(I do want to try to parse it down to one name per year, whenever logically possible.)

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.

1977 is a very tough year to call, one of the toughest. Lots of debate on here about it. I orginally had Vilas as no. 1, but have been persuaded that Borg deserves also an equal rating (Borg 3-0 against Vilas that year). Connors did win the WCT Finals and the Masters, but why the heck did the ATP computer rank Connors as no. 1?

Question: in what part of the year did Gonzales retire in 1960?

I remain convinced that in 1964 Laver was marginally better than Kenny: all the stats point in this direction. The case for Ashe higher than Connors in 1975 does seem strong. I bow to consensus. Edit made on 1978: Borg alone.

Agassi looks like a very close no. 2 in 1995, but not quite. In 1999 Sampras looks like a very close no. 2, but not quite.

I'm not sure exactly when Gonzales retired in 1960. But going by McCauley's book (I admit I'm going on memory) he's just not present at most of the big events. I seem to recall about Gonzales retiring early in the year, but I don't have exact info on me.

1964/1965 - it's a kind of reversal of things. Rosewall wins twice the number of titles than Laver in 64, but the major count is 2-1 Laver. Next year Laver wins more titles, but the major count is 2-1 Rosewall. In my opinion, Rosewall should get credit for one of these years or as co-#1 for both. Personally I think that Rosewall was better in 1964, but blew it at Wembley and the US Pro. EDIT: Got my facts wrong here - elaboration later.

Ashe/Connors. It's just hard to ignore Ashe winning Wimbledon and Dallas, both of which are top-5 events, along with the masters. Connors won no top-five events, although he had more consistent results. Ashe had a poor second half. I think Connors was the better player, but had a worse year.

1995 - Agassi had a consistent lead on Pete in points that year, one he surrendered by not playing the indoor season. That gets him at least a co-#1 in my books. In 1999, Pete seemed better in every respect, but gave Agassi a shot to win the US Open due to injury. Otherwise Pete still dominated Wimbledon and then took the Masters.

[quote=CyBorg;4069588]
1964/1965 - it's a kind of reversal of things. Rosewall wins twice the number of titles than Laver in 64, but the major count is 2-1 Laver. Next year Laver wins more titles, but the major count is 2-1 Rosewall. In my opinion, Rosewall should get credit for one of these years or as co-#1 for both. Personally I think that Rosewall was better in 1964, but blew it at Wembley and the US Pro.
QUOTE]

In 1964 I thought Laver won 11 tournaments and Rosewall 10. (He also had a 15-4 head to head against Rosewall and won 2 out of the 3 majors). What tournaments do you have Rosewall winning that year when you say he has twice as many tournaments? (Be great to know )

In 1964 I thought Laver won 11 tournaments and Rosewall 10. (He also had a 15-4 head to head against Rosewall and won 2 out of the 3 majors). What tournaments do you have Rosewall winning that year when you say he has twice as many tournaments? (Be great to know )

You might be right. I have this number in my head - 15-7. That may have been the ratio of Rod's to Ken's tourney wins in 1965.

In which case, I stand corrected.

Edit: according to wiki, Laver won 17 in 1965 and Rosewall 6. I'm being sloppy, I know, but I don't have my McCauley book on me at the moment.

All things considered, Rosewall is still in play as at least a co-#1 in these two years.

You might be right. I have this number in my head - 15-7. That may have been the ratio of Rod's to Ken's tourney wins in 1965.

In which case, I stand corrected.

Edit: according to wiki, Laver won 17 in 1965 and Rosewall 6. I'm being sloppy, I know, but I don't have my McCauley book on me at the moment.

All things considered, Rosewall is still in play as at least a co-#1 in these two years.

So in 1964 Laver is a clear number 1. More tournaments wins, more Major wins and dominant head to head. What I don't understand is why some commentators at the time had Rosewall as number 1 - he doesn't seem to be under any criteria. Any ideas anyone?

"A point system for 19 pro tournaments (excluding at least 10 other tournaments) also resulted in Rosewall being No. 1 to Laver's No. 2 but that system granted each tournament the same points and then was unfair to the big events where Laver was superior to Rosewall : Laver beat Rosewall & Gonzales in U.S. Pro; Laver again beat Rosewall in Wembley Pro; Rosewall beat Laver in French Pro."

Maybe it is this "unfair" point system.?

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.